Share this story

It's been years since the major record labels have sued individuals over downloaded songs. The most famous verdict against a file-sharer, in the Jammie Thomas case, finally ended three months ago when the Supreme Court refused to hear her case. The Obama administration backed the record companies, saying that the $222,000 verdict against her was not "obviously unreasonable."

Now the other giant file-sharing verdict has stood up on appeal as well. In hindsight, it looks like it was ill-considered for Joel Tenenbaum, then a college student, to push his case to a jury trial in 2009. He was hit with a $675,000 award, which his attorney called "bankrupting." They got that lowered by an appeals court, but the high award was reinstated on appeal. Then they appealed the whole case again—and lost again.

Yesterday, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the high award is justified. Even though Sony only sued over 30 copyrighted works, "Tenenbaum had apparently distributed far more," the court noted. "During discovery, Tenenbaum lied about his activities, blaming unidentified burglars and a foster child living in his parents' home among others. Only at trial did Tenenbaum admit that he had distributed as many as five thousand songs."

Tenenbaum's behavior was "egregious" and the award of $22,500 per song is just 15 percent of the possible $150,000. Such an award "comports with due process."

While these old file-sharing cases are ancient history in technology terms, the fact that the awards have stood up on appeal still matters. While the record labels have stopped their mass copyright litigation, it has been picked up by so-called "copyright trolls" that have no business beyond suing over their content. That "trolling" business model relies on high statutory damages to be successful. Strong judicial and executive support for the large damage awards suggests the copyright troll business model may last until there is serious discussion about reform to damages laws.